conservation and endangered african wild dogs lycaon

Conservation and Endangered African Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Western Tanzania: A Call for

Research and Action

P. Wilfred

25


Research and Action

P. Wilfred Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Technology and

Environmental Studies, Open University of Tanzania [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: The African wild dog is among the most endangered carnivores. Yet, the remaining populations are small and patchily distributed as a result of factors like human persecution, poaching, diseases, habitat loss, loss of prey and competition from other predators. Regrettably, research has paid little attention to the effectiveness of local conservation measures in tackling these challenges in some small wild dog populations especially in east African ecosystems. This paper focuses on the Ugalla ecosystem of western Tanzania as it outlines the pressing conservation need to conduct research and explore the influence of anti-poaching patrols and participatory conservation on the prey abundance and habitat availability for African wild dogs. Wildlife poaching in Ugalla is likely to bring about local prey depletion. Furthermore, unsustainable agricultural practices, illegal settlements and logging are important causes of wildlife habitat loss. There is a critical need for wildlife researchers to address these challenges and put forth handy recommendations in the context of anti-poaching measures and participatory conservation owing to the urgency of wild dog protection and the fact that the species is wide-ranging. Key words: wild dogs, western Tanzania, prey abundance, habitat loss,

anti-poaching, participatory conservation INTRODUCTION

The African wild dog, Lycaon pictus (Temminck, 1820) is one of the most endangered carnivore species that require focussed and productive conservation actions to prevent their extinction (Fanshawe et al., 1991; Gascoyne et al., 1993; Gorman et al., 1998; Hayward, 2006; IUCN, 2012). Sub-Saharan Africa has been acknowledged for its relatively high abundance of wild dogs (Fanshawe et al., 1997; Creel and Creel, 1998). Out of the 39 countries that used to have wild dogs, only 14 still have the species (Woodroffe et al., 2005), and only 6 of these contain viable populations (Fanshawe et al., 1991), namely South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Creel and Creel, 1998) . The remaining populations are patchily distributed (Gusset et al., 2008) and protected areas (‘clearly defined geographical spaces recognised, dedicated and

Huria Journal vol. 24

26

managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ [UNEPWCMC, 2008]) are considered to be strongholds for wild dogs (Gascoyne et al., 1993; Hayward, 2006). Protected areas with viable populations include Kruger National Park (South Africa) (Lindsey et al., 2005), Moremi Game Reserve (Botswana), Hwange National Park (Zimbabwe), Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania) (Creel and Creel, 2002). The overall population is fragile; it contracts and expands following changes in ecological, biological and conservation related factors (Vucetich and Creel, 1999; Creel and Creel, 2002). For example, Fanshawe et al. (1991) reported around 6,000 individuals remaining and Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2004) reported 5,750 individuals. Elsewhere in west and central Africa, wild dogs were extirpated as a result of poor conservation measures, negative attitudes among local communities, human persecution, poaching of prey species (illegal hunting for subsistence use) and habitat encroachment (Croes et al., 2012). Researchers have highlighted these, and a variety of other factors threatening the survival of wild dogs including, but not limited to, habitat destruction, diseases, competition from other predators, food availability, the size of a protected area, human populations and their unsustainable livelihood activities around conservation areas (Fanshawe et al., 1991; Lindsey et al., 2004; Carbone et al., 2005; Hayward, 2006; Jackson et al., 2007; Gusset et al., 2008; Hayward and Kerley, 2008; Romañach and Lindsey, 2008). Although commendable work is being done by scientists to control these challenges in popular ecosystems such as Serengeti, further attention needs to be paid to remote and isolated small populations in other ecosystems. The present paper focuses on the Ugalla ecosystem of western Tanzania as it outlines the pressing conservation need to conduct research and explore the influence of conservation measures, especially anti-poaching patrols and participatory conservation, on the habitat and amount of prey available for wild dogs. If, for example, conservation measures determine the extent of wildlife poaching and habitat loss, which in turn affect wild dogs and their prey, this can have profound consequences for our understanding of the status of wild dogs, and can improve the way in which they are protected. The paper begins by presenting challenges facing the conservation of wild dogs, and efforts made to tackle those challenges. Finally, it shades light on research needs for conservation in Ugalla ecosystem in view of the wild dog conservation literature.


27

WHY AFRICAN WILD DOG?

Increasing isolation of wild dog populations in Africa presents a serious conservation problem, precisely because the species ranges widely and usually finds itself in a human-dominated hostile environment outside protected areas (Woodroffe et al., 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2007; Woodroffe, 2011; Winterbach, 2013). For example, in Maasai Mara a pack can cover over 650 km2 outside Maasai Mara Game Reserve (Kat et al., 1995). In the Okavango Delta of northern Botswana, wild dogs are said to range over 3000 km2 including the area beyond the core conservation area (McNutt and Silk, 2008). While the survival and ecological requirements of wild dogs can be met in an area of about 10,000 km2 (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1999), human activities affect wild dogs even in larger areas (Creel and Creel, 1998). On the other hand, it has been suggested that a typical conservation area should be at least 3500 km2 to ensure the survival of wild dogs (Woodroffe et al., 2005). Broader ranges of wild dogs make them vulnerable to diseases, human-wild dog conflicts, and persecution. Diseases like rabies and canine distemper are transmitted between wild dogs and domestic dogs when the two species interact with each other (Gascoyne et al., 1993; Kat et al., 1995), but other findings suggest that the rate of interaction between the species is very low (Woodroffe and Donnelly, 2011). Human-wild dog conflicts reside on game animals and livestock predation (Lindsey et al., 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2005) and local negative attitudes towards wild dogs (Lindsey et al., 2004; Gusset et al., 2008), situations that often bring about wild dog persecutions (Gusset et al., 2009). Livelihood activities are also known to jeopardise wild dog survival because the species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance (Ray et al., 2005). For instance, expanding human settlements and agricultural activities near conservation areas devastate wild dog habitats and increase their isolation (Woodroffe et al., 1997; Woodroffe et al., 2007). Wild dogs require substantial amounts of food (Hayward, 2006) and game hunting for commercial and subsistence purposes reduces prey availability (Woodroffe et al., 2007). When food is scarce they spend a lot of time and energy searching for prey (Gorman et al., 1998; Woodroffe et al., 2009); consequently, they expand their range and allocate little time for taking care of their cubs (Hayward and Kerley, 2008). Poachers’ snares cause incidental deaths in wild dogs (Lindsey et al., 2004; Hayward and Kerley, 2008). Human presence intensifies wariness or anti-predator behaviour among prey species (Frid and Dill, 2002; Setsaas et al., 2007). This can interfere with wild dogs’ breeding, reproduction and hunting efficiency


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

28

(Woodroffe et al., 2009). Intraguild predation and kleptoparasitism (other predators stealing food from wild dogs) are widely recognised as important factors influencing wild dog population dynamics (Creel, 2001; Caro and Stoner, 2003). Lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) are the principal kleptoparasites (Gorman et al., 1998; Saleni et al., 2007). McNutt (2008) recorded some cases showing predation on wild dog pups by lions and hyaenas in northern Botswana. Of the two competitors, lions pose more serious threats to wild dogs’ survival (Vucetich and Creel, 1999; Webster et al., 2011). Kleptoparasitism is a function of habitat condition, prey density, competitors density and the ability of wild dogs to defend their kill. For example, fragmented habitat leads to isolation of sub-populations, thus intensified kleptoparasitism due to reduced source-sink dynamics in prey populations (Creel, 2001). Vegetation cover and density influence both kleptoparasitism and hunting efficiency. Dense vegetation reduces prey detectability by wild dogs (Buettner et al., 2007). Conversely, open habitat intensifies competition from kleptoparasites (Gorman et al., 1998; Hayward, 2006); because wild dogs live at low densities (Mills et al., 1998) and in most cases packs can hardly defend their kills (Courchamp and Macdonald, 2001; Rasmussen, 2009) depending on the number of kleptoparasites at carcasses and their ability to locate wild dog kills (Creel and Creel, 1998). Prey density is a trade-off between kleptoparasitism and food intake (Creel, 2001). As prey density increases, competitors density also increases thereby intensifying kleptoparasitism. For instance, prey densities in Selous Game Reserve are lower compared to Serengeti and Ngorongoro, but the density of wild dogs in the reserve exceeds the other protected areas (Creel and Creel, 1998). WILD DOG CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Wildlife scientists and managers have devised a variety of approaches to minimise species declines. In the case of wild dogs, broad conservation objectives have been threefold: to protect and maintain existing populations, to augment populations, and to promote gene flow among isolated populations (Vucetich, 1999). Protection entails managing populations of prey species such as Kirk’s dik-dik (Madoqua kirkii), impala (Aepyceros melampus), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus and T.sylvaticus) and greater kudu (T.strepsiceros) (Woodroffe et al., 2005; Hayward, 2006; Woodroffe et al., 2007), promoting positive changes in attitudes towards wild dogs and managing human-wild dog conflicts (Lindsey et al., 2004; Woodroffe et al., 2005; Gusset et al., 2008). Additionally, every effort is being made to ensure that local communities appreciate tangible economic values accrued from wild dog conservation for them to be willing to participate in conservation (Lindsey


29

et al., 2005). For example, wild dogs have the potential for ecotourism and resultant revenue can significantly contribute to conservation at a local level (Lindsey et al., 2005). Population maintenance encompasses ‘demographic’ and ‘genetic’ conservation approaches carried out in captivity (Frantzen et al., 2001) and connectivity conservation to maintain gene flow between isolated, usually small, populations (Vucetich and Creel, 1999). Connectivity conservation is integral ingredient of metapopulation dynamics (With, 2002). Active management of metapopulations is being carried out to sustain the availability of immigrants, without which isolated populations are at higher risk of becoming extirpated (Vucetich and Creel, 1999, Lindsey et al., 2004). In southern Africa, wild dog metapopulation management through re-introductions and translocations is being practiced to mimic natural biological and ecological processes (Lindsey et al., 2004; Gusset et al., 2008; Davies-Mostert, 2012), but it has been argued that the exercise is not cost-effective and its long-term practicability is questionable (Gusset et al., 2006). Thus, in situ conservation remains the most effective approach to ensuring the survival of wild dogs (Lindsey et al., 2005). Pack augmentations to maintain populations has been suggested (Somers and Maddock, 1999). This is done through, for example, managed in situ adoptions of orphaned pups by free ranging wild dog packs (McNutt et al., 2008). Generally, the conservation of wild dogs is a challenging task that is often locality specific (Vucetich and Creel, 1999; Woodroffe et al., 2007), and extinction risk factors may vary from ecosystem to ecosystem. THE PERILS OF WILD DOGS IN UGALLA ECOSYSTEM

Western Tanzania hosts a small, isolated and poorly studied population of African wild dog (TAWIRI, 2009) (IUCN endangered species Category 2a(i) ver. 3.1, (5)) in Ugalla Game Reserve (UGR) (5,000 sq. km, Figure 1). The reserve is the main part of Ugalla ecosystem, bordered by partially protected game controlled areas and forest reserves. It is characterised by miombo woodland vegetation containing highly valuable timber species of the genera Brachystegia, Julbernardia and Isorberlinia. Numerous mammal species, for example hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), African elephant (Loxodonta Africana), topi (Damaliscus korrigum), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and impala (Aepyceros melampus) are also found in the area (UGR, 2006). The ecosystem is also known as one of the most important bird areas in the country (BI, 2016). The management of Ugalla ecosystem is administered by the Wildlife Division of Tanzania through its


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

30

offices namely, Zonal Anti-Poaching Unit and Ugalla Game Reserve Project Office based in Tabora Municipality, western Tanzania.

Figure 1. Map of Tanzania showing the location of Ugalla Game Reserve (bordered

by partially protected game controlled areas (GCA) & Forest Reserves (FR)). Numbers 4 = Luganzo GCA, 5 = North Ugalla FR, 6 = Msima GCA, 7 = Ugunda GCA & 8 = Inyonga GCA.

The loss of wildlife and wildlife habitats as a result of logging, bushmeat hunting and other unsustainable livelihood activities in the area cannot be overstated (URT, 1998; Hazelhurst abd Milner, 2007). Indeed, this has started signalling the uncertainty of future Ugalla conservation success. To appreciate this, we should first realise that in order to support the sustainability of ‘protected areas’ under extractive or consumptive use, our conservation efforts must achieve certain crucial goals. Examples include the reduction of wildlife poaching in the hunted areas, improving connectivity between hunting and non-hunting areas to provide refuge for severely exploited species and regular monitoring to assess impacts of hunting (Damm, 2008). Unfortunately, these are yet to be achieved in western Tanzania although they would undoubtedly ensure the availability


31

and sustainable use of wildlife resources for both conservation purposes and local livelihoods. Recent research, for example, indicates that the majority of the animals in Ugalla ecosystem are removed through poaching (Wilfred and MacColl, 2014). Additionally, trends in trophy hunting and legal subsistence hunting have reached the point where individuals targeted are not old enough and hunting quotas are hardly realised (Wilfred, 2012).

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure 2. Photos of some illegal activity and wildlife in western Tanzania. a- Wild dogs in Ugalla (photo taken in 2009); b- Group of impala in Ugalla Game Reserve (2013); c- Buffalo shot by poachers, carcass being destroyed by game rangers (2013); d- Confiscated wire snares (2014); e- Human settlements and agricultural farms in game controlled areas (2016), f- Illegal pitsawing (2013). Photos a and d by Ugalla Game Reserve Project Office.

This is a dangerous situation as it can soon bring about diminution of the prey species hunted by the wild dogs. Furthermore, unlike many other conservation areas in Tanzania, Ugalla is isolated in the sense that there is no national park (strictly non-hunting area) immediately nearby, which could act as a wildlife ‘refuge’ for exploited species. Yet unsustainable agricultural practices in the game controlled areas and forest reserves, especially in the form of extensive slash and burn to create space for farms, grazing areas and settlements continue unabated (see Figure 2e). Combined


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

32

with widespread tobacco farming, which is also important for local livelihoods, this gradually creates not only ‘empty forests’ but also empty landscapes (UGR, 2006; Hazelhurst and Milner, 2007; Yanda, 2010; Wilfred, 2012). KNOWLEDGE GAPS AS REGARDS UGALLA WILD DOGS

We know little about the extent to which conservation efforts influence factors that determine the survival of wild dogs. For example, it is well known that bushmeat hunting is a huge problem in Africa and can accelerate wildlife depletion in protected areas (Davies and Brown, 2007). Thus, we need to know how much effective efforts to reduce bushmeat hunting influence prey availability for wild dogs are. In the same vein, future wild dog research and conservation should not ignore illegal activities that alter, destroy and disturb habitats. Activities such as illegal pitsawing and logging, and encroachment of forest reserves and game controlled areas can substantially reduce vegetation cover thereby affecting abundance and distribution patterns, and tradeoffs between foraging and interspecific kleptoparasitism risk.

Since wild dogs cannot be confined within state-owned wildlife areas due to their wide-ranging behaviour (Woodroffe, 2011; Jackson et al., 2012), active involvement of local communities has been acknowledged as key to addressing human-wild dog conflicts and other conservation problems (Lindsey et al., 2005; Dalerum, 2008; Gusset et al., 2008). But, our knowledge of the extent and constraints of community-based wildlife management in Ugalla is still limited.

Hurt and Ravn (2000: 304) noted that ‘the future of wildlife in Africa rests in the hands of its indigenous people...’ Given that wild dog conservation initiatives in Africa are costly and largely depend on donor funding, not all known wild dog populations will benefit from them. So, cost effective initiatives that utilise locally available resources (e.g. land, financial and human resources) should be promoted to guarantee sustainable management of wild dogs. Again, conservation efforts have paid too little attention to the feasibility of such initiatives as regards capacity building needs, appropriate incentives and wild dog conservation education and awareness.


33

THE FUTURE

For effective and sustainable conservation of wild dogs– and of course other wildlife species–in Ugalla, we should pay attention to the following aspects:

Current status of wild dogs: we need to know the abundance and distribution of wild dogs in Ugalla. This is important as it will enable local conservation authorities to take pragmatic and cost effective approaches to monitoring their population trends as done elsewhere (Croes et al., 2012; Davies-Mostert et al., 2012). Anti-poaching patrols: effective anti-poaching patrols ensure adequate prey for wild dogs since wildlife poaching removes large numbers of animals most of whom are main prey species for wild dogs. In addition, increased presence of poachers and their activities disturb wild dogs, affect their reproductive success, hunting success and bring about psychological stress. While research has already established that rigorous assessment of the efficiency of anti-poaching/patrolling efforts is a crucial ingredient in promoting conservation (Holmern et al., 2007; Milner-Gulland and Rowcliffe, 2007; Keane et al., 2011), there has been no attempt to estimate the anti-poaching effort required to promote optimal deterrence of poaching in Ugalla ecosystem. We need to quantify the effort devoted to anti-poaching patrolling in relation to the intensity of poaching in spatial and temporal contexts. Specifically, research must address the following questions: 1) What are the nature, distribution and characteristics of poaching activities in relation to activity patterns of wild dog? 2) How much anti-poaching effort is devoted? 3) How are the temporal, seasonal and spatial distribution patterns of the current anti-poaching effort? 4) How can the effectiveness of the anti-poaching effort be improved to achieve the desired level of conservation for sustainable wild dog conservation? Participatory conservation: participatory conservation aims to create or increase conservation awareness amongst local communities, which is significant in promoting wildlife as a valuable land resource (Emerton and Mfunda, 1999). This strategy was adopted to address problems associated with local resentment towards conservation triggered by the isolation of people from the natural resources on which they depend (Songorwa, 1999; Chatty and Colchester, 2002). Extensive wildlife poaching and negative attitudes among local people towards the conservation of Ugalla Game Reserve began in the 19th century


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

34

when the Wagalla people were forced to leave the area because of health reasons, mainly due to the spread of sleeping sickness (URT, 1998). Presently, the most worrying issue is a rapid increase in the human population density (URT, 2013) coupled with an intensified poverty. This tends to push more people into exploiting the natural resources for both food and income generation (URT, 1998; UGR, 2006). Active participatory wildlife conservation is thus paramount. Currently this is being practiced through two wildlife management areas (Ipole and Uyumbu), but on a relatively small scale. If the WMAs are efficiently and effectively managed towards achieving their intended objectives, they can be a potentially useful platform for addressing people’s wildlife-based livelihood needs while ensuring sustainable conservation of wildlife and their habitat (IRA, 2007; Wilfred, 2010). It is therefore entirely reasonable that new WMAs are created in game controlled areas and forest reserves, with attention to the considerable involvement of local communities who are often affected by conservation decisions. CONSERVATION IMPLICATION

This paper has suggested conservation issues that need urgent research and conservation attention to save a small population of endangered African wild dog in the Ugalla ecosystem of western Tanzania. The fact that wild dogs can at least be seen in the area acts as suggestive evidence that the area can provide suitable habitat for the species. As a result, there is a desperate need for research geared towards enhancing the ability of local conservation practitioners to reverse trends in prey population decline and habitat loss through more rigorous conservation measures. Figure 3 presents a theoretical framework highlighting the nature of the relationship between conservation measures and protection of wild dogs. Here, conservation measures entail wildlife law enforcement (usually through anti-poaching patrols) and participatory conservation. Local participation will create a sense of belonging to conservation activities among local communities that will promote conservation awareness, positive attitudes towards conservation and sustainable livelihood activities (e.g. environmentally-friendly settlements and farming techniques). These are vital elements in the management of human-wildlife conflicts, and thus improved wild dog conservation. Participatory conservation should go hand in glove with effective law enforcement. The latter will deter poaching and also ensure prey abundance. Further, it will reduce the impact of poacher activities, such as snaring and logging, on wild dogs, other wildlife species and wildlife habitat. Availability and abundance of prey for wild dogs is partly the result of local people’s sustainable ways of living especially when they stop illegal hunting of wild ungulates. Prey


35

availability also minimises conflicts resulting from livestock predation by carnivores. Improved conservation of wild dogs will reflect effectiveness of conservation measures because, as suggested by (Dalerum et al., 2008), carnivores are conservation flagships as their presence inspires conservation efforts.

Figure 3. Theoretical framework showing relationships among some key factors in

the management of wild dogs, triggered by conservation measures.

REFERENCES Bird Life International [BI], (2016). Important Bird and Biodiversity Area

factsheet: Ugalla River Game Reserve. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 18/04/2016.

Buettner, U.K., Davies-Mostert, H.T., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L. (2007). Factors affecting juvenile survival in African wild dogs Lycaon pictus in Kruger National Park, South Africa, J. Zool. 272: 10-19.

Carbone, C., Frame, L., Frame, G., Malcolm, J., Fanshawe, J., FitzGibbon, C., Schaller, G., Gordon, I.J., Rowcliffe, J.M. and Du Toit, J.T. (2005). Feeding success of African wild dogs Lycaon pictus in the Serengeti: the effects of group size and kleptoparasitism. J. Zool.266: 153-161.

Caro, T.M. and Stoner, C. (2003). The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biol. Cons. 110: 67-75.

Chatty, D. and Colchester, M. (Eds.) (2002). Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement, and Sustainable Development. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Courchamp, F. and Macdonald, D.W. (2001). Crucial importance of pack size in the African wild dog Lycaon pictus. Anim.Cons. 4: 169-174.

Anti-poaching patrols Participatory conservation

Deterrence

of poaching

Prey

abundance

Conservation measures

Improved conservation of endangered African wild dogs

Human-wildlife conflict management

Sustainable

livelihoods

and habitat

availability

Improved

attitude

toward

conservation


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

36

Creel, S. (2001). Four factors modifying the effect of competition on carnivore population dynamics as illustrated by African wild dogs. Cons. Biol. 15: 271-274.

Creel, S. and Creel, N.M. (2002). The African Wild Dog: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Creel, S.R. and Creel, N.M. (1998). Six ecological factors that may limit African wild dogs Lycaon pictus. Anim. Cons.1: 1-9.

Croes, B., Rasmussen, G. Buij1, R. and de Iongh, H. (2012). Status of the African wild dog in the Bénoué Complex, North Cameroon. http://www.canids.org/canidnews/15/African_wild_dogs_in_Cameroon.pdf

Dalerum, F., Somers, M.J., Kyran E. Kunkel, K.E. and Cameron, E.Z. (2008). The potential for large carnivores to act as biodiversity surrogates in southern Africa. Biod. Cons, 17: 2939-2949.

Damm, G.R. (2008). Recreational trophy hunting: what do we know and what should we do? In: Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting – A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World. Baldus, R.D., Damm, G.R. and Wollscheid, K. (Eds.), pp. 5–11. The CIC – International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation.

Davies, G. and Brown, D. (Eds.), (2007). Bushmeat and Livelihoods: Wildlife Management and Poverty Reduction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and Zoological Society of London, UK.

Davies-Mostert, H.T., Kamler, J.F., Mills, M.G.L., Jackson, C.R., Rasmussen, G.S.A., Groom, R.J. and Macdonald, D.W. (2012). Long-distance transboundary dispersal of African wild dogs among protected areas in southern Africa. Afr. J. Ecol. 50: 500-506.

Emerton, L. and Mfunda, I. (1999). Making Wildlife Economically Viable for Communities Living Around the western Serengeti, Tanzania. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Paper, No. 1, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Fanshawe, J.H., Ginsberg, J.R., Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Woodroffe, R. (1997). The status and distribution of remaining wild dog populations. In: the African Wild Dog: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., Macdonald, D.W. (Eds.), pp. 11-57.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Fanshawe, J.H.L., Frame, L.H. and Ginsberg, J.R. (1991). The wild dog – Africa’s vanishing carnivore. Oryx 25: 137-146.

Frantzen, M.A.J., Ferguson, J.W.H. and De Villiers, M.S. (2001). The conservation role of captive African wild dogs Lycaon pictus. Biol. Cons. 100: 253-260.


37

Frid, A. and Dill, L.M. (2002). Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Cons. Ecol.6(1): 11. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11/

Gascoyne, S.C., Laurenson, M.K., Lelo, S. and Borner, M. (1993). Rabies in African wild dogs Lycaon pictus in the Serengeti region, Tanzania. J. Wild. Dis.29: 396-402.

Gorman, M.L., Mills, M.G., Raath, J.P. and Speakman, J.R. (1998). High hunting costs make African wild dogs vulnerable to kleptoparasitism by hyaenas. Nature 391: 479-481.

Gusset M., Swarner M.J., Mponwane, L., Keletile, K. and McNutt, J.W. (2009).Human-wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: livestock predation by endangered African wild dog Lycaon pictus and other carnivores.Oryx 43: 67-72.

Gusset, M., Ryan, S.J., Hofmeyr, M., van Dyk, G., Davies-Mostert, H.T., Graf, J.A., Owen, C., Szykman, M., Macdonald, D.W., Monfort, S.L., Wildt, D.E., Maddock, A.H., Mills, M.G.L., Slotow, R. and Somers, M.J. (2008). Efforts going to the dogs? Evaluating attempts to re-introduce endangered wild dogs in South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:100-108.

Gusset, M., Slotow, R. and Somers, M.J. (2006). Divided we fail: the importance of social integration for the re-introduction of endangered African wild dogs Lycaon pictus. J. Zool.270: 502-511.

Hayward, M.W. (2006). Prey preferences of the spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta and degree of dietary overlap with the lion Panthera leo. J. Zool. 270: 606-614.

Hayward, M.W. and Kerley, G.I.H. (2008).Prey preferences and dietary overlap amongst Africa’s large predators.S. Afr. J. Wild. Res. 38: 93-108.

Hazelhurst, S. and Milner, D. (2007). Watershed Assessment of the Ugalla Landscape. USDA, Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip Report. http://www.rmportal.net/library/content/usda-forestservice/USFS_Watershed_Assessment_of_the_Ugalla_Landscape.pdf/view

Holmern, T., Muya, J. and Roskaft, E. (2007). Local law enforcement and illegal bushmeat hunting outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Env. Cons. 34: 55-63.

Hurt, R. and Ravn, P. (2000). Hunting and its benefits: an overview of hunting in Africa with special reference to Tanzania. In: Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use.Prins, H.H.T., Grootenhuis, J.G. and Dolan, T.T. (Eds.), pp. 295-313. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London.


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

38

Institute of Resource Assessment [IRA] (2007). Assessment and Evaluation of the Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. Wildlife Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN] (2012). IUCN Red list of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. www.iucnredlist.org

Jackson, C.R., McNutt, J.W. and Apps, P.J. (2012). Managing the ranging behaviour of African wild dogs Lycaon pictus using translocated scent marks. Wild. Res.39: 31-34.

Kat, P.W., Alexander, K.A., Smith, J.S. and Munson, L. (1995). Rabies and African Wild Dogs in Kenya. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, 262: 229-233.

Keane, A., Jones, J.P.G., Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011). Encounter data in resource management and ecology: pitfalls and possibilities. J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 1164-1173.

Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R.R., Du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L. (2005). The potential contribution of ecotourism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South Africa. Biol. Cons.123: 339-348.

Lindsey, P.A., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L. (2004). Area and prey requirements of African wild dogs under varying habitat conditions: implications for reintroductions. S. Afr. J. Wild. Res. 34: 77-86.

McNutt, J.W. and Silk, J.B. (2008). Pup production, sex ratios, and survivorship in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:1061-1067.

McNutt, J.W., Parker, M.N. Swarner, M.J. and Gusset, M. (2008). Adoption as a conservation tool for endangered African wild dogsLycaon pictus.South Afr. J. Wild. Res. 38: 109-112.

Mills, M.G.L., Ellis, S., Woodroffe, R., Maddock, A., Stander, P., Rassmussen, G., Pole, A., Fletcher, P., Bruford, M., Wildt, D., MacDonald, D., Seal, U. (1998). Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the African Wild Dog (Lycaon Pictus) in Southern Africa. Final Report from the Workshop held 13–17 October 1997 in Pretoria, South Africa. IUCN/SSC, Gland, Switzerland.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Rowcliffe, J.M. (2007). Conservation and Sustainable Use: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rasmussen, G.S.A. (2009). Anthropogenic Factors Influencing Biological Processes of the Painted Dog Lycaon pictus.PhD thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Ray, J.C., Hunter, L. and Zigouris, J. (2005). Setting Conservation and Research Priorities for Larger African Carnivores.WCS Working Paper No. 24. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.


39

Romañach, S.S. and Lindsey, P.A. (2008).Conservation implications of prey responses to wild dogsLycaon pictus during the denning season on wildlife ranches. Anim. Cons.11: 111-117.

Saleni, P., Gusset, M., Graf, J.A., Szykman, M., Walters, M. and Somers, M.J. (2007). Refuges in time: temporal avoidance of interference competition in endangered wild dogs Lycaon pictus.Canid News 10.2. www.canids.org/canidnews/10/interference_competition_in_wild_dogs.pdf

Setsaas, T., Holmern, T., Mwakalebe, G., Stokke, S. and Røskaft, E. (2007). How does human exploitation affect impala populations in protected and partially protected areas? - A case study from the Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania. Biol. Cons. 136: 563-570.

Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M. and Macdonald, D.W. Eds. (2004). Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 430 pp.

Somers, M. and Maddock, A. (1999). Painted dogs of Zululand. Afr. Wild. 53: 24-26.

Songorwa, A.N. (1999). Community-based wildlife management CWM in Tanzania: are the communities interested? WorldDevelopment 27: 2061-2079.

Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute [TAWIRI] (2009). Tanzania Wild Dog Conservation Action Plan. In: Tanzania Carnivore Conservation Action Plan. pp. 5-30. TAWIRI, Arusha, Tanzania.

Ugalla Game Reserve [UGR] (2006). A Checklist of Plants, Animals and Birds in Ugalla Game Reserve. Unpublished Report, Ugalla Game Reserve Project, Tabora, Tanzania.

United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre [UNEPWCMC] (2008). State of the World’s Protected Areas: an Annual Review of Global Conservation Progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

United Republic of Tanzania [URT] (1998). Tabora Region Socio-Economic Profile. The Planning Commission Dar es Salaam, and Regional Commissioner’s Office, Tabora, Tanzania.

United Republic of Tanzania [URT] (2013). Population Distribution by Age and Sex. National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, Dar es Salaam, and Office of Chief Government Statistician, President’s Office, Finance, Economy and Development Planning, Zanzibar.

Vucetich J.A. and Creel, S.R. (1999). Ecological interactions, social organization, and extinction risk in African wild dogs. Cons. Biol.13:1172-1182.


Research and Action

P. Wilfred

40

Webster, H., McNutt, J.W. and McComb, K. (2011). African wild dogs as a fugitive species: playback experiments investigate how wild dogs respond to their major competitors. Ethology 118:147-156.

Wilfred, P. & MacColl, A.D.C. (2014). Legal subsistence hunting trends in the Ugalla ecosystemof western Tanzania. Eur. J. Wild. Res. 60(2): 371-376.

Wilfred, P. (2010). Towards sustainable wildlife management areas in Tanzania. Trop. Cons. Sc. 3: 103-116.

Wilfred, P. (2012). Patterns of Wildlife Exploitation in the Ugalla Ecosystem of Western Tanzania. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Wilfred, P. (2012). Trophy hunting and trophy size in Ugalla Game Reserve, western Tanzania. Tanz. J. Sci. 38(2): 111-122.

Winterbach H. C. W., WinterbachE. K., Somers M. J. andHaywardM. W. (2013). Key factors and related principles in the conservation oflarge African carnivores. Mamm. Rev. 43: 89-110.

With, K.A. (2002). Landscape connectivity and metapopulation dynamics. In: Learning Landscape Ecology: A Practical Guide to Concepts and Techniques. Gergel, S.E. and Turner, M.G. (Eds.), pp. 208-227. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Woodroffe, R. (2011). Ranging behaviour of African wild dog packs in a human dominated landscape. J. Zool. 283: 88-97.

Woodroffe, R. and Donnelly, C.A. (2011). Risk of contact between endangered African wild dogsLycaon pictus and domestic dogs: opportunities forpathogen transmission. J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 1345-1354.

Woodroffe, R. and Ginsberg, J.R. (1999). Conserving the African wild dog Lycaon pictus. II. Is there a role for reintroduction? Oryx33: 143-151.

Woodroffe, R., Chapman, K., Lemusana, E. (2009). Solitary breeding in an African wild dog Lycaon pictus. Afr. J. Ecol. 47: 790-791.

Woodroffe, R., Davies-Mostert, H., Ginsberg, J.R., Graf, J.A., Leigh, K., McCreery, E.K., Mills, M.G.L., Pole, A., Rasmussen, G.S.A., Robbins, R., Somers, M. and Szykman, M. (2007). Rates and causes of mortality in endangered African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: lessons for management and monitoring. Oryx 41: 1-9.

Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg J.R. and Macdonald D.W. Eds. (1997). The African Wild Dog: Status survey and conservation action plan AWDCAP. IUCN-the World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. 123p.

Woodroffe, R., Lindsey P.A., Romañach, S.S. and Ole Ranah, S.M.K. (2007). African wild dogs Lycaon Pictus can subsist on small prey: implications for conservation.J. Mamm. 88: 181-193.


41

Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romañach, S., Stein, A., ole Ranah, S.M.K. (2005). Livestock predation by endangered African wild dogs Lycaon pictus in northern Kenya. Biol. Cons. 124: 225-234.

Yanda, P.Z. (2010). Impact of small scale tobacco growing on the spatial and temporal distribution of Miombo woodlands in western Tanzania. J. Ecol. &Nat.Env. 2: 10-16.

conservation and endangered african wild dogs lycaon

Documents